YL v Birmingham CC (2008)

Court: House of Lords

Facts: Y, a resident of a care home operated by a private healthcare company (S), had her placement arranged and funded primarily by Birmingham City Council (B) under Section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948, with additional funding from Y's family and the NHS for nursing care. After allegations arose regarding the conduct of Y's family during visits, S proposed transferring Y to a different care home. Y invoked Section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming that S's actions were incompatible with her rights.

Issue: Whether S was exercising functions of a public nature within the meaning of Section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998, thereby obligating S to conduct its operations in a manner compatible with Convention rights.

Held: The House of Lords held that S was not exercising functions of a public nature as defined in Section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act. The court reasoned that merely having special powers conferred by Parliament did not automatically qualify a body as exercising public functions. In this case, S operated as a private, profit-making entity, and its motivations pointed against categorizing it as a public body.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Neuberger stated: “In providing care and accommodation, S acted as a private company motivated by profit, and therefore did not have functions of a public nature that would engage the Human Rights Act” [12]. However, Lord Bingham, in a powerful dissent, argued that if the local authority places someone in a care home, the functions exercised should be considered public, regardless of the provider's status.

💡 LevelupLaw: This case established significant legal precedent regarding the application of the Human Rights Act in contexts involving private care providers. Following this decision, Parliament amended the law to expand the definition of public authority in respect to care homes, ensuring that local authorities would be held accountable under the Act for respecting the Convention rights of individuals placed in private care.

Previous
Previous

IRC v Federation of Small Businesses (1982)

Next
Next

R (Liberal Democrats) v ITV Broadcasting (2019)